-s
BA.
aa
Independent Broadcasting Authority
Ref: IBATOP/20/153
Mr. Balktishna Kaunhye
Managing Director
TOP FM Ltd
7 Floor, The Peninsula,
2A, Falcon Street,
‘Caudan
Port-Louis
1 Decomber 2020
Dear Sir,
Re: BREACH OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR BROADCASTING SERVICES IN
THEE! “TEME y" BROADCAST BY TOP FM LTD ON 24
FEBRUARY 2020
SUSPENSION OF LICENCE TOP FM LTD
|lam directed to inform you that:
1. TOP FM Ltd. is the holder of a PRIVATE COMMERCIAL FREE TO AIR FM
RADIO BROADCASTING LICENCE (the licence’) issued by the Independent
Broadcasting Authorty, the “Authorty’, pursuant to the provisions of the Independent
Broadcasting Authority Act. The licence was renewed by the Authory fer the period 13
December 2018 to 12 December 2021. Its highlighted that a radio frequency does not
‘belong to any operator but a licence is given to that operator by the Information and
‘Communication Technologies Authorily to use that frequency pursuant to its statutory
rage 1032
ee
Level 2.The Ceca. 6,Si Caicoart Anti Stet, Pot Lous, Marts
Tet (23) 2133800, Fans OM) 213 396, Erm neem, Website: pom a.m Powers under section 18 (1)(p) of the Information and Communication Technologies
‘Act. In respect to the use of frequencies, the Authority also refers to section 2 (relevant
definitions for radio licences are included) and section 18(1) (p) and 18(1) (e) of the
Information and Communication Technologies Act which provide as folows:
“allocation” means the entry of a glven frequency and in the
‘Mauriius Frequency Allocation Table to be used by one or more
terrestial or space radio communication service, cr the radio
astronomy services;
“Frequency band means 8 continuous fhoquency range of spectrum:
“Mauritius Frequency Allocation Table” means the table where the
spectrum plan for Mauritius is detailed:
‘radio communication” means eny transmission, sission or
‘reception of signs, signals, writings, sounds or intelligence of any
‘nature, of @ frequency less than 3000 gigahertz, propagated in
‘space without artificial guide:
“radio spectrum™ means the portion ofthe electromagnetic spectrum
Which is below 3,000 gigahertz:
“service provider" means any person who provides an information
‘and communication service, including telecommunication:
“18. Functions of Authority
(1) The Authority sha
(P) allocate frequencies and manage, review and, where appropriate,
reorganise the frequency spectrum:
Pago 20132
a (0 s0t up @ radio frequency management unit for the allocation,
‘monitoring, controt and regulation of radio frequences and, with the
‘epproval ofthe Minister, participate in any regional monitoring system;”
2. Paragraph © of the licence issued by the Authority to TOP FM Ltd provides for
suspension ofthe licence and reads as follows:
“9, SUSPENSION
9.1 Notwithstanding Clause 8 above, whore the Authority is satisfied
that
2 the Licensee has falled to start its operation within 6
‘months of the issue of this Licence or within such
additional period as may be allowed by the Authority:
'. the Licensee has ceased its operation under this Licence;
©. the Licensee has given the Authority information which is
false or misleading in a material particular;
4d. the Licensee has failed to comply with the Code of Conduct
‘specified in the Second Schedule to the Act (ANNEX A);
€. its in the public interest to do 50,
itmay suspend the Licence.”
3, TOP FM Ltd, as any other licensee, is also bound by the terms of is cence and
by section 21(6) of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act wich makes it
Page 30132
ib ‘mandatory for it to comply withthe terms and conditions of ts licence. Section 216) of
the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act provides that:
“A licensee shall comply with the terms and conditions ofa licence.”
4, Its lear that the Code of Conduct for Broadcasting Services (see paragraph
8.1(¢) of TOP FM Lia's licence) has, as a matter of law, to be complied with by any
licence of the Authority whici is duty-bound to comply with the terms and conditions of
lis licence and with the laws of Maurits. A breach of the Code of Conduct for
Broadcasting Services, is also a breach of paragraph 9.1(d) of TOP FM Ltd's licence,
TOP FM Ltd's licence, in paragraph 9.1(d), clearly specifies that such a breach may
lead to a suspension ofthe licence,
5. On 24 February 2020, TOP FM Lid broadcast the following extract in its
Programme "Tempo la 80" as from 1730:
«At around 18h12
Jack Bizlal
Nou bizen kapav ena courage pou dir Modi deux kitsoz, enn kitsoz, fouss so
‘ipié en dehors nous société. To pas enn dimun erédible pow assizer pou vinn dir
‘nou ki nou bizen fer et par ailleurs, c's kl pe rade fer dan Finde anti Musulman
‘nti certains religions, pou vinn fer sa dan Maurice, Pou arrive enn moment, $2
Contradiction ki pe lever den Inde la, ena enn Université en Inde mo fek zouen
‘90 étuiant, bannla rent dan université vinn tr for université parski University of
Uttar Pradesh parski Université la inn prend postion contre Modi Et aisse mo pe
(envi dir dimun,
age aot 32
he ty
8. The Authority, at its meeting of 16 March 2020, considered the above item and
‘was of the considered view that the extract of the programme broadcast by TOP FM La
{as from 17h30 on 24 February 2020 potentially breaches the underlined part of
Paragraph 2(a) of the Code of Conduct for Broadcasting Services set out in the Second
Schedule to the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act which provides as follows:
Broadcasting licensees shall =
(2) not broadcast any material whieh Is indecent, obscene or offensive
‘0 public morals or offensive to the religious convictions or feelings of
‘any section of the population or likely to prejudice the safely of the
Stale oF the public order or relations between sections of the
population:
Oo"
7. By Way of letter dated 08 Apri 2020 (Ref: LIT-TOP/20/040) (ANNEX 1), TOP FM
Ud was requested to show cause, in writing, by Thursday 15 April 2020 by noon, at
latest why TOP FM Lid should not be sanctioned for the potential breach of the
Lndertined part of paragraph 2(a) of the Code of Conduct for Broadcasting Services set
‘out in the Second Schedule to the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act.
8. On 10 Apri 2020, TOP FM Lid represented by ls Chatman Mr Balksishna Ved
Prakash Kaunhye, applied for judicial review in relation to the Authority letter dated 08
April 2020. The application for judicial review contained a prayer in relation to the
Authority's letter dated 08 April 2020,
gestae uw 9. On 15 April 2020, the Supreme Court (Hon. E. Balancy, Chief Justice, as he then
‘was, and Hon. R. Seetohui-Toolsee Judge) granted Prayer E of the application and
Prayer E reads as follows:
“For a temporary stay of proceedings of the respondent in
relation with its letter of 08 April 2020, and further, or
alternatively, an interim or interlocutory weit of injunction
restraining and prohibiting the respondent from further
proceeding with its lettor dated 8.4.20, until the hearing and
determination of the proceedings for judicial review"
10. 07 085 May 2020, the Supreme Court (Hon, €, Balancy, Chief Juste, as he then
was, and Hon. R. Sestohul-Toolsee Judge) in its judgment (2020 SCJ 77) decided as
follows:
“We accordingly had no hesitation to grant Prayer E in our
Judgment fled on 15 Aprit 2020"
11. Its apposite to note that with the granting of Prayer E. the regulatory action
initiated by the Authority hed to be stopped until the Judicial Review proceedings were
heard and determined or until the Supreme Court reconsidered the propriety of Prayer E
having been granted against the Authoriy given that such a prayer stapped regulatory
‘action from being proceeded with and given that the Authority had net reached @ final
‘decision in respect ofthe regulatory action which it had initiated by way of its letter dated
8 April 2020,
12, On 22 September 2020, betore the Supreme Cour, thet Lordships Hon. 0. Chan
Kan Cheong Judge and Hon. N. F, Oh San-Bellepeau, Judge, highlighted in their
judgment, the folowing matters:
Page 632
ee “4, Insofar as prayer B is concemed (the “second decision”
dated the 8 April 2020), itis in fact @ letter requesting the
‘applicant to show cause why it should not be sanctioned for @
potential breach of the Code of Conduct for Broadcasting
‘Services: His therefore not a final decision.
5. itis common ground that, asa rue, judicial review les only
in spect ofa final decision against which all avaiable remedies
hhave been exhausted, and not against a step In an on-going
process (vide Jogarah V. & Others v National Transport
Authority [1997 SCJ 163], and Teeluckdarry K. v Tho Bar
Council & Another [2019 SC 50).
6. Nonetheless, relying on the case of Teeluckdarry (supra),
‘the applicant submits that leave for judicial review may be
(granted where there are exceptional circumstances and where @
decision, albeit not final, Is ab initio, in breach of the rules of
natural justice, procedurally lawed, unreasonablo and unfair.”
7. A porusal of the affidavits in support of the application and
the statement of case however shows that there is no averment
‘made in relation to the exceptional circumstances or to the
‘second decision” being defective ab initio. in other words, the
‘submission made on behalf ofthe spplicant in that regard are not
borne out by the evidence on record so that the presont
application does not disclose an arguable case with respect fo
the “second decision.”
@ Moreover, we re ofthe view that the applicant's challenge
(of the second decision is, at this stage, premature. The
application in effect does not disclose any compelling reason to
Page of 2
it prevent the respondent from exercising its statutory powers and
performing its statutory duties. in these circumstances leave is
refused with regard to prayer 8.
ta
11, Leave having been refused as regards paragragh B, tho
Onder issued folowing the grant of Prayer E on the 15" Apri!
2020s discharged.”
13. By way of letter dated 06 October 2020 (L/T-TOP/20/113) (ANNEX 2), the
‘Authority reiterated its request to TOP FM Li to show cause, in writing, by Tuesday 13,
October 2020 by noon, at latest why TOP FM Ltd should not be sanctioned for the
potential breach as stated in the Authority's letter dated 08 April 2029. The Authority
Fighlights that the Order of the Supreme Court of 15 April 2020 prevented the Authority
{rom proceeding with regulatory action pending the cetermination of judicial review
proceedings. The said order was subsequently discharged by the Supreme Court on 22
‘September 2020 and the Authority was only then able to pursue regulatory action
14, By way of email dated 13 October 2020 (ANNEX 3) received at the Authority at
‘10:41am, Me A. Radhakissoon, whose services has been retained by TOP FM Ltd,
requested for particulars of the potential breach alleged to have been committed by
TOP FM Lid,
18. By way of letter dated 13 October 2020 (LIL-TOPI20/122) [ANNEX 4), the
‘Authority replied to TOP FM Lid in the following terms:
“The Authoniy has taken note of your letler dated 13 October 2020 received at
10:41am on 13 October 2020 by email.
be You are reminded that the deadline for replying to the Authonly’s letter dated 06
‘October 2020 (Ref: L/T-TOP/20/113) expired on 43 October 2020 at noon and
the Authonty expected your reply by the deadline
The issues raised in your letter dated 13 October 2020 may be considered by
you when replying to tho Authority's letter dated 08 April 2020 (Ref: L/T-
TOP/20/040} and 06 October 2020 (Ref: L/T-TOP/20113). You ace siso
‘reminded that regulatory action ought not be delayed as your cient, himsel, is
‘kely to complain that the regulator has delayed in taking regulatory action
against him,
1 stands fo reason that by asking for particulars at some 79 minutes before the
expiry of the deadline is tantamount to using delaying tactics when such
particulars may have been asked since 08 April 2020,
The fetters dated 08 April 2020 (Ref: L/T-TOP/20/040) and £6 October 2020
(Ref: L/T-TOP/20/113) are sell-explanatory. Prayer E (injunction granted by Hon
Balancy CJ, as he then was, and Hon Toolsee, Judge) of your application for
Judiciol review was discharged on 22 September 2020, i.e 21 days from the date
of your letter dated 13 October 2020. In the light of the discharge of that
injunction, you had to reply tothe Authority's letter dated 08 Apri 2020.
You are hereby expected fo show cause, in writing, by Wednesday 14 October
2020 by noon, at latest why TOP FM Lid should not be sanctioned for the
‘potential breach as stated in the Authonty’s letter dated 08 April 2020. The
Authorty’s letter of 6 October 2020 was a folow up to the letter dated 08 April
2020 and was in response to the discharge of Prayer E of your judicial review
‘application, In the event thet you do not reply to this letter, itis assumed that you
{do not have any reply to make.”
16, In response to the Authority's lelter dated 13 October 2020 (UL-TOP20/122)
(ANNEX 5), the Chief Executive Officer of TOP FM Lid, Mr B. Kauntye, stated, intor
Page 9032
ie ‘aia, in a letter dated 13 October 2020 addressed to the Authority that “.. In such
Gircumstances, should you maintain not to provide the particulars which have been
‘Sought from you, the licensee shail reserve alls legal rights In the matter tothe fullest
‘extent which is permitted by applicable law .As the representative of the conse, Iam
hereby instructing cur Counsel, Me Ashok Radhaklssoon to correspond directly with you
(this matter’
17. By way of letter dated 14 October 2020 (ANNEX 6), TOP FM Ltd replied to the
‘Authority's letter dated 08 October 2020 (L/T-TOP/20/113) and stated, inter alia, that:
“My client denies having commited any breach of Section 2(a) ofthe
Code of Conduct for Broadcasting Sorvicos and specifically in
relation to the underined parts highlighted in your ktter under
reference,
My client avers that it does not have to show cause es to why it
should “not be sanctioned” as it verly believes and stands legally
‘advised that it has not committed any breach as regards the content
Of the statement made by Mr Jack Biziall during the impugned
programme
18, The matter was debated at length during the Authority's meetings of 16 March
2020 and 10 December 2020. Its highlighted that the material broadcast in relation to
Which particulars were sought 79 minutes before the expity of the deadline set by the
‘Authority contains only 104 words, Further, the reference to paragraph 2(a) of the Code
of Conduct for Broadcasting Services in the Authority letter dated 6 October 2020
‘makes it clear that TOP FM Lid was boing made amenable to regulatory action since
such maternal was “likely to prejudice relations betwoen sections of the
Population.” The extract broadcast was to the effect that the Indian Prime Minister
Modis alleged antiMuslim and ant-other religion policies would be implemented in
Page 10 of 32
x Mauritus. It stands to reason that such a statement is likely to prejudice relations
between the Muslim, andior other religious denominations in Mauritius and other
Sections of the population which include, but are not limited to, Indian nationals residing
in Mauritius,
18, _ In relation to the request for particulars dated 13 October 2020 fom TOP FM Lid,
'tis highlighted that TOP FM Ltd asked for particulars some 79 mnutes before the
expiry of the deadline set by the Authority or TOP FM to show cause why it should not
be sanctioned for the potential breach of paragraph 2(a) of the Code of Conduct for
Broadcasting Services. n effect, a demand for particulars, at that late hour, would have
further delayed regulatory action and TOP FM Lté would not have shown cause so long
as the particulars are not furnished. This delaying tactic used by TOP FM Ltd atthe last
hour cannot be entertained. Further the letters from the Authority and the 104-word
Paragraph as well as the reference to paragraph 2(a) of the Code of Conduct for
Broadcasting Services made it very clear what was being reproached of TOP FM Ltd,
20. In addition, it's highlighted that the particulars requested by TOP FM Ltd amount
{0.2 series of interrogatories. An analogy can, here, be drawn in relation to requests for
particulars in civil cases. In the case of Emtel Limited v The Information and
Communication Technologies Authority & ors [2014 SCJ 288] the Supreme Court
applied the case of Guladhur and Ors v. Guiadhur & Sons Ltd. (1962 MR 49] and
explained the “clear line of demarcation" which must be drawn between particulars and
interrogatories, Particulars are confined to averments in the pleadings and the object of
Particulars is to give tothe other party information which the latter reasonably require to
defend himself. i is iso explained In the case of Gujadhur that the object of
Interogatories is two-fold: firstly, to obtain admissions to faciltate the proof of a case
‘and secondly, to ascertain so far as may be done, the case of the opponent
Interogatories are generally directed to the evidence on which the inlerrogating party
relies to establish his case Whilst applications for particulars are allowed,
interrogatories are not. In the case of Gujadhur, the case of Lister Company Ltd. v
Poge 1 of 2
& ‘Thompson [7 TLR 1071's referred to as Indicating the demarcation line which should
bbe drawn between applications for particulars and interrogatories and also how the
Court may refuse an application for further and belter particulars as being a series of
interrogatories and as being oppressive.
21, An analysis of the request for particulars by TOP FM Ltd clearly shows that itis
list of questions which is a series of interogatories addressed to the Authority which
cannot be entertained,
22, With reference to the letter dated 14 October 2020 addressed tothe Authorty by
‘TOP FM Lid, the following should be notes:
(@) the issue of particulars as per the letters from the Chief Exzculive Officer of
‘TOP FM Ltd dated 13 October 2020 and the letter dated 14 October 2020
have been addressed above:
(&) with regard to paragraph (A) of the letter dated 14 October 2020, there was
ho need for a public complaint for the Authority to act. A breach of the Code
of Conduct for Broadcasting Services must be dealt with by the Board of the
Authority which can act proprio motu in respect of such a breach. The Board
's empowered and is duty-bound to decide on any potential breach in relation
to the Code of Conduct for Broadcasting Services set out In the Second
‘Schedule tothe IBA Act
(6) in relation to paragraohs (B), (D) and (G) of the same letter, TOP FM Ltd is
reminded that itis the holder of @ broadcasting licence from IBA and not Mir
Jack Bizlall. (TOP FM Lid is referred to the extract of Mr. Kaunhye cited at
paragraph 27 below). TOP FM Ld is further reminced thatthe exercise of the
Fight to freedom of expression is subject to limitations set out under section
12{2) of the Constitution. The expression of disapprobation does not confer a
Fight on the person to ulter words which are likely to prejudice the relations
pe
age 12 01 32 between sections of the population. The expression of dlsaparobation and the
words aired by TOP FM Ltd could have been said in anether way without
targeting any section of the population. The host of the programme should
hhave stopped Mr Bizlal from saying the impugned words. itis apposite to
highlight that section 12 of the Consttuton (which does not confer an
‘absolute freedom of expression) reads as follows femphaeis is ours]
“12. Protection of reedom of expression
(1) Except with his own consent, no persor shal be
hindered in the enjoyment of his reedom of expression, that
Js fo say, freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
{dees and information without interference, and freedom from
Interference with his corespondence.
(2) ‘Nothing contained in or done under the authority of
any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in
‘contravention of this section to the extent that the law in
‘question makes provision—
(2) in the interests of defence, public safety, public order,
public morality or puble heath
for the purpose of protectin tat
labs and te ‘of other persons or the private lives
f persons concerned in legal venting
the disclosure of information received in
maintaining the authority and independence of the
‘or regulating the technic tration or the
fechnical_operation of telephony, telegraphy. posts,
wireless broadcasting, television, publie exhibitions or
‘public entertainments: or
Page 13 0 32
we (6) forthe imposition of rosttions upon public officers,
50 far as that provision 12 case m:
the thing done under its authority is shown not to be
ease lustfiable in a democratic society."
()in relation to paragraph (C) of the same eller, the expression of
isapprobation in the following terms *..c'est ki IM pe rode fer dan Inde
‘anti Musulman anti cortains religions, i pou vinn fer sa dan Maurice..."
oes not in any way raise any issues of national interest, Section 283 of the
Criminal Code deals withthe offence of sedition and is therefore relevant for
Our purposes. When exercising ts powers under the Independent
Broadcasting Authority Act, in respect of the Code of Conduct for
Broadcasting Services, the Authority is not bound to walt for criminal action to
bbe disposed of before It exercises its rogulatory powers. A licence issued by
the Authority is valid for @ period of 3 years only and renewalis not automatic
If the Authority waits for criminal cases to be finally disposed of, its regulatory
Powers in respect of suspension and revocation would be cliose. There is a
‘lear line of demarcation betwoen the reaim of criminal law and the realm of
‘regulatory action under the Independent Broadcasting Authoty Act. Itis clear
that regulatory action and criminal law can and do operate in parallel. The
Authority also wishes to highlight the matters raised in 2004 when the
Independent Broadcasting Authority, though its then Chairmen, expressed the
intention to possibly ban live broadcasts (see paragraph 27 below). In the
present context, the only regulatory action which is belng taken is suspension
‘28 provided for by the Independent Broadcasting Authority Aet; and
* "Ur, when resd in the context of the broadcast, refers to the Indian Prime Minister,
Honourable Modi
He
Page 160f 32 {)in relation to paragraphs (E) and (F) of the same letter, the Authority is
empowered to take regulatory actions against its licensees albeit the
possibilty exists for referral to other enforcement agencies, Athough no
‘actual incident was reported, on a plain interpretation of paragraph 2a) ofthe
Gode of the Conduct for Broadcasting Services set out in the Secon
Schedule to the IBA Act, itis clearly provided that broadbasting licences
‘shall not broadeast any material which is likely o prejudice relations between
‘sections ofthe population [Undertining is ours)
23, After having considered the explanations of TOP FM Ltd, the Authority is not
Satisfied withthe explanations of TOP FM Ltd and is of the considered opinion that TOP.
FM Lid has breached paragraph 2(a) of the Code of Conduct for Broadcasting Services
set outin the Second Schedule to the Independent Broadcasting Authorty Act
24. The Authority highlights that a breach of the Code of Conduct for Broadcasting
‘Services is a matter which isto be taken seriously as section 21(7) of the Independent
Broadcasting Authority Act provides that licensees “shall carry out its activities in
compliance with the code of conduct specified in the Second Schedule.”
[undertining Is ours}. The Code of Conduct for Broadcasting Services is a Code which
broadeasting licencees are stalutoly bound to comply with. The Authority further
highlights thet the word “shall is to be read as being imperative (vide section 5(4)(a) of
the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, as judicially considered and applied in the
case of Nq Ket Leong v Medical Couneil of Mauritius 2019 SC 1,
25. The extract of the programme "Tempo la so" broadcast by TOP FM Ltd on 24
February 2020 as from 17h30 hours, and set out at paragraph 6 above, Is considered
by the Authority as breaching Paragraph 2 (a) of the Code of Conduct for Broadcasting
‘Services in as much as the words broadcast by TOP FM Lid, as a whole, are likely to
Prejudice the relations between sections ofthe population.
as 012 te 28. The Authority is fully alive to the fact that Mauritius is a country where people of
all retigious faiths are living in harmony. The fact that Mir Bizall stated on TOP FM Lid
that “c'est ki Il (Mod? pe rode fer dan nde anti Musulman anti certains
religions, li pou vinn fer sa dan Maurice...» is not acceptable ard is in breach of
paragraph 2(a) of the Code of Conduct for Broadcasting Services as set out in the
‘Second Schedule to the IBA Act.
27, An extract of an article published in -Plus Dimanche of 29 February 2004
(ANNEX 7) is of utmost relevance to paragraph 22 abave end also 0 the conduct of
TOP FM Lid as a licences, In the said article Me Ashok Radhakissoon, the then
Chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, and now, one of the legal
advisers of TOP FM Ltd, stated the following
“Nous pourrions aller trés foin dans les sanctions s'il le faut”, dit Ashok
Radhakissoon, président de IBA."
‘Le Premier ministre, Paul Bérenger, a été clair dans sa déclaration lors de
's2 conférence de presse hier: “Les dérapages en direct sur les radios
rivées sont dangereux et inacceptables,” Le président de IBA a tenu les
mone envers les responsables des radios privées hier matin. Au
int. a dit au Conseil des ministres, 1a question a 616 évoquée :
“Nous nous sommes demandé Yétions rivés & un moment
00 i fallait “ban” (bannin) les émissions on direct sur les radios privées. La
chose est dans le domaine du possible si les radios n’arrétent pas avec
Jours dérapages”. La veille vendredl, au cours du consell des ministres, le
Pil avait pris la décision de rencontrer bient6t les responsables des radios.
fen compagnie des membres de I'lBA et du vice-Premier ministre.
Trois heures plus tt, c’étalt au consell d'administration de IBA de
* "Ur, when read in the context of the broadcast, refers to the Indian Prime Minister,
Honourable Modi
Page 16 032 ny
ae rencontrer les responsables des radios privées et un responsable de la
ine rencontre qui a pris l'allure d'un« den er
déclaration que nous a faite le président do BA Ashok Radhakissoon
“Nous avons 1contrer les responsables des radios
sommes consternés par cortaines émissions en direct, Nous leur avons fait
jours propositions, surtout par & cortains déra ir les
radios privées. No évoqué les couvertures do certains 1
sensibles car nous no voulons pas arriver 4 une situation sociale intenable
‘Sur fond de haine raciale.” Los menaces cette fols sont précises, “A V1BA,
nous sommes disposés 4 agir. Nous pourrions aller trés loin avec des
‘sanctions s'il fe fallait, Nous proposons dans un premier temps derréter
‘momentanément des émissions en direct jusqu'a ce qu'on arrive & trouver
tune solution. Nous avons fait aussi d'autres propositions comme Vachat
d'un équipement, e ‘broadcast delay’, qui permet d'avoir un recul entre 8 ot
20 secondes s‘agissant des émissions en direct. Les responsables des
radios ont eu une approche responsable”, affirme Ashok Radhakissoon qui
revolt les responsables des radios privées demain, au siége de PICTA cette
is, pour écouter leurs propositions.”
Réactions
Finlay Salesse (Radio One):
“Ul est inacceptable que FIBA interdise les émissions en direct qui sont la
respiration méme d'une radio privée. A moins d’empécher celle-cl d'avoir
une vocation de service public. Certaines radios ont certainement des
dispositions prendre pour éviter tout dérapage. A Radio One, nos
auditeurs ont fe sens de la responsabillté. I appartient aux journalistes-
animateurs dimposer tes paramétres pour éviter des dérapages 4
antenne. Nous avons toujours dit & Radio One que la liberté de parole ne
be Suppose pas la liberté de dire n'importo quoi et nos auditeurs
responsables lent compris depuis tras longtemps. Au-dels d’une solidarité
ou d'un esprit corporatiste, il est utile de préciser que Radio One est
hostile 4 toute censure mais que ceux qui sont coupables de dérapages
doivent étre sanctionnés.”
Harold Essoo (MBC)
“Les discussions de concernent moins la MBC que les radios privées
S'agissant des aérapages.””
Eshan Khodarbux :
“Nous avons écouté IBA. Maintenant, nous allons consulter nos hommes
de foi. A la réunion du lundl 4 IBA, nous comptons faire des contre-
Propositions. ne faut pas que la liberté d'expression soit victime de cette
situation de division et de subdivision de notre société eréée par les
‘hommes politiques eux-mémes a travers le communalisme scientifique. Le
débat cémocratique doit continuer. ne faut pas détourner Vattention sur
des sujets d’importance comme la répartition de la richosse économique,
par exemple
Nous notons que depuis quelque temps déjé, M. Bérenger conditionne
opinion contre les radios privées, les éditorialistes et des caricaturistes.
Lorsqu’on sait qu'll y a une lol restrictive en préparation, permettons-nous
'étre méfiants & "égard do la démarche du PM,
we
Page of 32 ‘Kris Caunhye (Top FM):
est tout & fait normal que chaque radio assume ses responsabiités
‘selon le cahier des chargos de IIBA Act. C'est vrai qu’ll est trés difcite de
‘savoir ce qui peut sortir d'une conversation lors d'une émission en dirt
i nsable_d'une radi mesures
nécessaires, surtout en co u'll s‘agit des sujets qui peuvent toucher a la
‘religion. Notre société est quand méme fragile. Des sujets qui touchent a la
Stabilité de notre nation ne dovralent pas faire Vobiet d’émissions on
direct, Au niveau de Top Fit, nous avons pris les dispositions necessaires
4 travers un sytéme qui permet de passer les appels en léger différé. Je
comprends la réaction du Premier ministre qui réagit fermement lorsqu'l y
‘a des atteintes quand on traite des sujets sensibles.” [Emphasis is ours]
28. The Authority, in order to ilusrate the very dangerous nature of such broadcasts,
hhas endeavoured to find out the impact of radio broadcasts which are likely to damage
relations between communities in other countries, For instance, in Rwande, the radio
RTLM played a crucial ole in the genocide in 1994. In an atile from Montreal institute
for Genocide and Human Rights Studies:
hitpswww.concordia.ca/rescarch'migs/resourcesirwanda-radio-transcipts.html] tho
re of Radio was highlighted:
“During the 1994 Rwanden Genocide, radio broadcasts played an important role
Jn inciting ordinary citizens to take part in the massacres of their Tuts), and
‘moderate Hulu, neighbours. Two major radio stations transmitied hate
propaganda to the illterate masses-Radio Rwanda, and Radlo Télévision des
Mites Colines (RTLM). Radio Rwanda was the offial government owned radio
Station. Under the second Arusha Accord it was barred from continuing to
Page 19 52
i disseminate hate propaganda, This led the Hutu Power circle around President
Habyarimana and his wifo to found RTLM as a private radio station. RTLM
‘became immensely popular as a young, hip alternative to the offical voice of the
‘goverment. It played popular music, and encouraged the publi to phone in and
participate in radio broadcasts. Amongst its listeners, RTLM attracted tho
unemployed youth and interharnwe mila,
From October 1993 to late 1994, RTLM was used by Hutu leaders to advance an
‘extremist Hutu message and anti-Tuts alsinformation, spreading fear of a Tutsi
genocide against Hutu, identiying specific Tuts! targets or areas where they
could be found, and encouraging the progress of the genocide. In Apri! 1994,
Radio Rwanda began to advance @ similar message, speaking for the national
authontos, issuing directives on how and where fo kl Tutsls, and congratulating
those who had already taken part.
Radio Muhabura (Radio Beacon) was the official radio of the Rwandan Patriotic
Front. The broadcasts of Radio Muhabura did not reach Rwandans all over the
country and the logic of its broadcasts was that Rwandans were not divided into
Hutu and Tulsi but shared a strong civic national identity. This was in marked
Contrast fo the Hutu Power themes of RTLM's broadcasts.
Although there were many ploas for the intemational community to jam the
broadcasts of RTLM and Radio Rwanda before and during the genocide, both
Stations continued to encourage and direct the kiling of Tuts's and moderate
Hutus until they were forced off the air by the Rwanda Patriotic Front’s military
victories.”
29. Im another article (Source: http:!heconversation.comidebate-continues-
about-the. _medias.role-in-driving-wandas-genocide-114512;] it was highlighted
& “We can't reflect on the history of the 1994 genocide without considering the
Cnticel role the media played in both inciting and prolonging the violence. In the
‘summer of 1999 the government, ruled by the pro:Huty National Revolutionary
‘Movement for Development, engaged in @ peace process withthe mostly-Tutsi
rebel army, the Rwandan Patriotic Front. They negotiated an end to the civil war
‘and the repatriation of Tutsi exiles. At the same time, howover, the Movement
was also preparing for genocide.
The youth wing of the Nations! Revolutionary Movement ‘or Development
‘established the interahawe, This paramiltary group would eventvaly lead attacks
(on Tutsi civilians. Hardliners trom the party also launched Redie Télévision Libre
des Mille Collines (RTLM - French for “Thousand Hills Free Radio and
Television). it was @ radio station that disseminated hate sropaganda and
prepared its listeners for the coming violonce. The broadcaster provided @
popular platform for ideas already circulating in Kangura, an extremist magazine
founded in 1990.
‘The enduring debate about tho role of media was central to @ case before the
Intemational Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. The tribunal was tasked with
‘prosecuting high-level perpetrators and the masterminds of the genocide. The
defendants in what was known as the Media Case included RTLM co-founder
Ferdinend Nabimana, its execulive Jean-Bosco Barayaguiza and Kanguro
ounder and edior, Hassan Ngeze.
‘In 2003, al three were convicted of genocide, incitement to commit genocide,
‘and persecution using radio broadcasts and newspaper artiles as a crime
‘against humanity. The conviction for commiting genocide was overtumed on
‘appeal, but much ofthe original ruling was retained.
Page 28 0f 2
b- The Media Case was precedent.sotting, It held media executives accountable for
‘inciting genocide, regardless of othor factors that may have infuenced the
perpetrators. Legal scholars suggest that tho Judgement will have a significant
limpact on futuro cases of incitement to genocide.”
30, In the book titled "Radio Propaganda and the Broadcasting of Hatred”
published by Palgrave Macmillan, London, January 2012 with ISBN 978-1-349-32600-9,
978-1-137-26418-0 by the author Keith Somervile chapter 5 deals with Rwanda
Genocide, Hate Radio and the Power of the Broadcast Word. An extract at the start of
Chapter 5 states:
“The Chamber finds thet RTLM broadcasts engaged in ethnic Stereo-
‘typing in @ manner that promoted contempt and hatred for the Tutsi
population. RTLM broadcasts called on listeners to seek out and take yp
‘arms against the enemy [..] These broadcasts called axplctly for the
‘extermination of the Tuts! ethnic group. (Intemational Criminal Tribunal
for Rwanda (ICTR) Vordict on RTLM and Kangura joumalists, Nahimane,
p. 263"
31, The 1965 Mauritian race riots and the 1999 Kaya episode are stil fresh in the
‘Authority's mind. The Authority is of the considered view that it should aet In the public
inlerest to prevent any such “dérapages’ as set out in paragraph 5 above. Such
broadcasts are likely to prejudice the relations between sections oF the population
Therefore, the Authority's regulatory measures are necessary and proportionate in
relation to such broadcast by TOP FM Lid, itis a welcome fact that the Maurtian
Population, did not react violently in relation to such broadcast by TOP FM Ltd, Our
‘mult-cultural social fabric is one which should be cherished and preserved. The
Authority will nt alow any broadcaster to use the alewaves to imperil rational unity and
harmony (see Kris Kaunhye’s own words to S-Plus Dimanche at paragraph 26 above)
age22 of 32
a 32, The Authority isnot satisfied with the explanations of TOP FM Ltd and considers,
thatthe suspension of the Liconce of TOP FM Ld is well warranted given the breach of
the Code of Conduct for Broadcasting Service set out in this letter and explained, in
dotall, to TOP FM Lia,
33. The Authority considers thatthe threshold to suspend a broadeaster’s licence is
high. A suspension of a licence prevents the broadcaster from broadcasting and it
reduces the number of voices being heard and the range of programmes available to
the audience. The Authority highlights that the maximum period for the suspension of a
liconce is 21 days (vide section 25(2)(b) ofthe Independent Broadcasting Authority Act)
‘The Authority hes considered this matter very anxiously. In deciding the length of
Suspension to be given to TOP FM Lid., the Authority, as an independent regulator, is
{ully alive to the fact that the suspension of a licence is not a mator which may be
treated lightly
34. The Authority has considered
(@) the nature ofthe breach;
(0) tho explanations of TOP FM Lia;
(e) the appicabe lav
(8) TOP FMLId's teenee: and
() TOP FM Lt previous suspensions periods.
35. _Belore coming fo a conclusion on this matter, the Authority hes further applied
the test of proportionality to decide on the length of suspension to be meted out to TOP
Page 23 of 32
be FM Lid. The Authority is of the considered view that the breach committed by TOP FM.
Lid justly the suspension of TOP FM Ltd's licence for 3 (three) days out of a maximum
‘number of 21 days suspension which could have been given to TOP FM Ltd by the
Authority (vide section 25(2)(b) ofthe Independent Broadcasting Authority Act).
36. The Authority highfights that TOP FM Lid has been it
periods of suspension (these periods of suspension have already been served but are
the subject matter of judicial review applications before the Supreme Court}
ited with the folowing
(@) —_2days trom Saturday 04 April 2020 - 06h00 am to
‘Sunday 06 April 2020 - 0600 am;
() 2 hours on Saturday 06 June 2020 from 09:00 hrs to
11:00 hrs; and
(©) 4 hours on Sunday 07 June 2020 from 10:00 hrs to 14:00
hs.
37. Its in the public interest that the Authority applies its powers of suspension to
protect the social fabric of Maurilus from being damaged by irresponsible and reckless
broadcasters. In the OFCOM's (the UK equivalent of the Indapendent Broadcasting
Authority) decision to suspend the licence of MAN MEDIA UK LIMITED, the folowing
may be read at paragraph 52 ofthe notice of revocation which assists fh shedding some
light on the issue of “public interest” in the context of rogulatory action by OFCOM
(underlining is ours)
"82. While we recognise the needs highlighted by the Licensee and
stakeholders, Ofcom also has @ specific statulory duty to ensure
‘broadcasters do not transmit material that is Ikely io encourage or incite
‘rime or le (sorder. The principal reason for broadcastng to
Jated at ab i ences. To this e ast [censoes
red to comply with contains m
Page 28 1 32 is_broadcast. This covers @ range of matters,
including for example the safeguards that must be observed to prevent
Incitement to the commission of crime or disorder. In addition, Veonsees
just_comply with conditions conceming 2 range of matters,
Jncluding establishing and maintaining eppropriate compliance
procedures. Ofcom's published regulatory standards and the conditions
contained in broadcast licenses are designed to emtody the
requirements of responsible broadcasting. Key considerations as to
whether itis necessary in the public interest for a licensoe's Hoence to
be revoked in that context will be that person's compliance with
1s and the conditions of is licence and whether the
licensee's keeping of the licence poses @ clear risk of substartia has
10 87 audience, if t brings into question public confidence in the
or if it indicates thatthe licensee lacks respect for, or
abilly_to with, ther regime so thet continued
‘owmership ofthe licence would undermine that regime,"
38. _ In the United States, the notion of imposing a public interest abgation broadcast
Station operators was frst put forth officially by Herbert Hoover in 1924, As Secretary of
‘Commerce for Republican President Calvin Coolidge, Hoover argued that radio “is not
{0 be considered as merely a business carried on for private gain... is @ public
concern Impressed with the public trust and is to be considered primarily from a
‘standpoint of public interest fo the same extent and upon the basis of the seme
_general principles as our public utlities.”
29
‘amounts to granting a scarce resource, belonging to the public, t> that operator.
Airwaves are public resources and no person or corporation could own the
electromagnetic specirum flowing through tho air. As a resull, there Is # quid pro quo for
Page 25 of 32
—
is highlighted that allocating a radio licence to an operator Ie @ privilege and the Authority's grant of spectrum use. The Authority would hand over a licence to use
the airwaves to oporate a station for @ fixed period of time. In exchange, the lucky
recipient of this asset would operate the station as a trustee for the public that owned
this spectrum, with the obligation to perform certain functions for the greater good
beyond merely airing entertainment programming. A licence to broadcast amounts to a
broadcasting privilege and must be used responsibly and in strict compliance with the
licence conditions and the laws of Mauritius,
40. Itis highlighted that the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act Fas been enacted
since the year 2000 and it came into force on 1 January 2001. Till-date the provisions of
Independent Broadcasting Authority Act, Insofar as they relate to suspension and
revocation, have not been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Cour. The
Authority is therefore entited and duty-bound ta enforce the provisions of the
Independent Broadcasting Authority Act, A licences against whom regulatory action is
being taken by the Authority cannot seek to prevent the Authority from enforcing the
Provisions of the Independent Authority Act by erroneously referring to freedom of
‘expression a8 being a right which is unlimited and unfettered. In the recent case of
Business Mauritius v The Mauritius Revenue Authority 2020 SCJ 315, the Supreme
‘Court observed as follows:
“It has indeed been correctly submitted that ‘it is 9 well-estebilshed
principle thet @ law is presumed fo be consiitutional unlbss the
contrary is shown" (Police v Moorba [1971 MR 199)). What this
means is that unloss and until the impugned legistation, or any
att of it, is struck down by the Court as being unconstitutional,
the legislation must be presumed to be valid and would
‘therefore continue to be enforceable,
However, the continued enforcement of a legislation mhich is
presumed fo be valid but which is being constitutionally challenged
does not operate as an automatic or absolute bar in all situations.
we
a
Page 26032 The Court may intervene where Its continued enforcement would
ead to imeparable harm being caused as @ result of a blatant
Violation of some constitutionally entrenched right. The Court had this
to say in that respect in RJR ~ Mac Donald v The Attorney-General
of Canada [1994] 1 S.C.R 311, atp 333:
“For the Courts to insist rigily that al legislation be enforced to tho
Jeter until the moment that itis struck down as unconstitutional might
Jn some instances be to condone the most blatant violation of Charter
rights"
‘tis most helpful and appropriate to refer in oxtenso to a more recent
Canadian decision Hok c. Procureure Générale du Québec 2019
QCCA 2145 which, following an in-depth analysis of the issues
Involved, explains the approach to be adopted where the Court is
Confronted with an application for stay pending the determination of
the constitutional of a legislation
"1104] n this regard, the third fest ~ assessing where the boiance of
‘convenience es is particulary relevant, because it Is here ‘hat the
public interest, which Is prosumed to be reflected in the impugned
legislation, must be considered and given the weight it should cary:
RUR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Atomey General), supra, 5p. 942-
‘347. As Sopinka and Cory, JJ, noted in RJR ~ MacDonald, p. 346,
“Tal court should not, as a genoral rule, attempt to ascertain whether
‘actual horm would result from the restraint sought’, bocause coing so
“would in effect require judicial inquiry into whether the goverrmmont is
_goveming well, which is no! the role of the courts. On the contrary,
‘the court should in most cases assume thet ieparable harm to the
public interest would result from a suspension ofthe statute
[705] Courts are very familiar with these rules, including the rule
eriaining to what is often referred to as the presumption of the
2 i
Page 27 of 2 validity of fews, In this regard, it is appropriate to cite the ‘ollowing
passage from the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in
Hamper v. Canada (Altomey general), 2000 SCC 57, [2000] 2 S.C.R.
764, para. 9:
19] Another principle set out in the cases is that in considering the
grant of an interocutory injunction suspending the operation of a
validly enacted but challenged law, itis wrong to insist on proof that
the law will produce @ public good. Rather, at this stage of the
proceeding, this is presumed. As Sopinke and Cory Ju. stated in RUR
Macdonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney Genera), [1994] 4 $.C.R 311,
at pp. 348-49
When ture and 1050 of legislation is to
remote the public interest, a ‘court should
ced whether the legislation actually has such an effect. It
‘must be assumed to do $0.”
‘it follows that in assessing the balance of convenience, the
motions judge must proceed on the assumption that the law fs
direc inlle good and serves a valid public pur
The assumption of the public interest in enforcing the law
we wily in the balance. Courts will ns order that
Jaws smont or lature has duly enacted for the
public _good are inoperable _in advance _of complete
constitutional review, which is always a complex and difficult
mattor._It follows that only in clear cases will in
injunctions against the enforcement of a law on grounds of
alleged unconstitutionality succeed.”
[Emphasis added”
Page 28 of 32 rb
oo 41, Itis highlighted that in the case of Bhonah v Public Service Commission (2012
‘SCJ 204) the Supreme Court (Hon D. Chan Kan Cheong, Judge) pettinently observed
48 follows in the context of granting injunctions against bodies acting pursuant to their
statutory functions:
“Leamed Counsel for the respondent hes very appropriately
referred to the case of Brunet v Public Service Commission [1993
‘SCJ 330], where the applicant was seeking an interim order
prohibiting the respondent Commission from proceeding with the
recruitment and appointment of candidates for a post atthe Ministry
0 Trade, The loarned Judge held as follows =
“I have grave doubts as to whether the Supreme Court would
seriously consider issuing an injunction ofthe kin that the applicant
envisages in view of the fact that judicial review would always te in
respect of appointments and redress can always be obtained.”
OQ)
Finally, (find thatthe bslance of convenience is against granting the
‘order inasmuch as the public interest in the continued functioning of
Public institutions far outweighs the private interests of the applicant
(vide Zeadally v The Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Civil Service
Affairs and Administrative Reform [2001 SCJ 141], Marie v Local
Government Service Commission [1985 SCJ 42] and Brunet v
Public Service Commission (above). In this respect, with regard to
the epplicant’s private interests tis to be noted that he has applied
‘anew for the second solaction exercise.
Page 28 of 32
wh For the above reasons, | decline to issue the interlocutay onder
prayed for by the applicant. , therefore, sot aside the present
pplication with costs and I certly as to Counsel.”
42, Further in the case of Ramdawon v Medical Council of Mauritius 2012 SCJ
$47, Balancy J, 2s he then was, observed as follows in relation to granting an injunction
with a view to prevent a regulatory body from using its statutory powers:
“As rightly pointed out by Counsel forthe Council, the grant of such an
Interocutory injunction would detest the whole purpose of the law ~
the Act — in confering upon the Counc powers to investigate
complaints, and this consideration must have significant
preponderance in the balance. The dicta i Dookhony v The
Commissioner of Police (2002 SCJ 182), Gaffoorv Tho Commissioner
on Drugs end Maney Laundering Assets and Anor [2002 SC: 283 and
Gaffoor v The Commissioner on Drugs and Money Laundering Assets
and Anor (2005 SCJ 140}, quoted by Counsel fr the Councl, appear
to me to be quite pertnnt in that connection. Although those cases
were concemed withthe impropriety of injunctive orders which would
Lunusttiaby tie police action, the principle behind the dicta is equally
plicable, in my view, to al institutions which havo, by law, a function
{0 full, ond which should not be unduly hempered inthe fuliinent of
such @ function. The apolicent cannot expect, bythe simple device of
lodging @ civil case in Court, fo obtain an interlocutory order from the
bh
x
Page 30 02 Judga in Chambers preventing the Medical Council from exercising a
function devolving upon it by law pending the determination of te civil
43. The particulars of the suspension period decided by the Authority in respect of
TOP FM Lid are as fllons:
Date suspension starts + 18" December 2020
Time suspension starts 06:00. am.
Date suspension onds : 19" December 2020
Time suspension ends, 06:00am.
44, The effect of the suspension is that during the suspension period TOP FM Lid
should not broadcast any material, The Authority reminds TOP FM Ld tha in respect of
8 previous suspension dated 4 April 2020, TOP FM Ltd continued to broadcast
notwithstanding that suspension, The matter was reported to the Police (CCID) by the
‘Authority on 4 April 2020. The Authority understands that the matier is still being
inquired into by the Police.
45. TOP FM Lid. is further directed by the Authority to give public notice of this
suspension prior to it taking effect.
Page 3 of 32
be 48. TOP FM Lid is further reminded that paragraph 35.1 of iis lence provides es
follows:
"35. BASHING
95.1 The Licensee shall refrain from using
its alr to eniticise
directions/directives Issued
decisions or
to it by the
Authority with a view to diserodit the latter.”
SIGNED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF
AUTHORITY,
bhp
K. Ramphut
Acting Director
Page 32 of 32
INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING -_—!
{BA
ANNEX
Rot: LIT-ToP/20/040,
Mr Batkrishna Kaunhye
Managing Director
TOP FM Ltd
7° Floor, The Peninsula,
2A, Falcon Street,
Caudan
PortLouls
08 April 2020
deat Si,
‘Re: Potential breach by TOP FM Lid in programme “Tempo ia 20° brosdcaston 24
ebruary 2020 as from 1730,
‘The Authority Is of the considered view tht the extract ofthe programme “Tompo Is 33
broadcast by TOP FM Lt on 26 Febuary 2020 as fromm #7130 ae in breach ofthe underined
pat of paragraph 2) ofthe Cade of Conduct for Broadcasting Sevces set cut the Second
‘Schedule to the Independent Broadcasting Authonty Act wick provides a fcWs:
<2, caneral
Broadcasting licensees shall-
(2) not broadcast any material which Is indecent, obscene ox ofesve to
public morals oe ofenive fo the egous convictions oF fealings of any
‘section of the population or kely to reid he safety cf the Slate cr he
buble order or rlations between sections ofthe population:
wut
“The waract is as follows
eAtarount 18812
Jack Bizfall,
Nou blzen kapav ana courage pou di Mod deux Kiso, en hiteor, fous 30 I en dors
‘nous socita, To pas enn dimun edie pou asszer pay vin le nou roy Eze fret par
‘ileus, C25! W 1 po rode fer dan inde ami Musulmen ant certains reigns, pou van fa sa
eet iL ‘dan Maurice. Pou anive enn moment, sa conection fi pe lav dan finds {ana oan
Universit on Inde ma fk zousn so eusan, barn ant dan univers nn tar erste
erst University of Ltr Pradseh pars Univers (6 fn rend poston cons Md see
‘mo pe env ar cman,
or
‘You ore hereby requested © show caus, i weting, by Thuredav 15 Apr 2020
latest wry TOP Fi Lid shout not be sancioned for he potetal breach of te underines pat
f paragraph 2{a) of the Code of Canduc fer Brosdeasing Series set out in be Second
Schedule tothe Independant Broadcasting Arty Act
Yours faithfully,
be Cagle
Kramphul
‘Acting Director
pe 2f2 A utho.
asti
ng é
Ret: UT-TOP/20/113, ANNEX.
Me. Balkrishna Kaunhye
Managing Director
TOP FM Ute
‘7th Floor, The Peninsula,
28, Falcon Steet,
Cavaan
PortLouls
05 october 2020,
Dear Sr,
‘TOP EM Lid in programme “T
‘February 2020 as from $7h30,
rose
“The Authoriy’s latter dated 08 Ari 2020 (Ref: L/T-TOP 20/040) asdressec fo TOP FM Lis
refers. The Author took note ofthe folowing:
(1) On 10 Api 2020, TOP FM Lid represented by is Chairman Mr Bakishna Ved
Prakash Kaunhye, appied fr jcc eview ofthe Authors decision dated 03 Ani
2020;
(2) On 15 Anni 2020, the Supreme Cout (Hon. E.Galancy, Chief Justze and Hon.
Seotohu-Toolsee Judge) grated, without ging detaled reasons, Prayer E ofthe
_appication and Prayer E reads as folows:
“Fora temporary slay of proceedings ofthe respondent in relation wih is iter of 08
‘Apri 2020, end futher. 07 atematvely an iter oF itrocutor wrt of intuncton
"restraining and prohibtng the respondent fom further proceeding wih ts tor cated
1.4.20, unt te hearing and determination a the proceedings fr judi ravi”
(9) Qn 95 May 2520, Supreme Court (Hon. €.Balany, Cie use ard Hon F
tohul-Toolose Judge) Ins judgment, giving the detalles reasons fr granting
prayer on 1 pt 2, 200 90) ged woo
“we accordingly had ne Restation to grant Prayer En our juderent fled en 8 Apri
2020
(4) On 22 September 2020, bore the Supreme Coun, their Lordship Hon. D. Chan Kan
(Cheong Judge and Hon. N.F. Oh San-Selepeau Judge, stated thirjudonert that
“the Order iesued falowing the grat of prayer Eon the 15th Api 2020s dlscharged
ere The Geico, 6, Sir Glen Artes Ste, Po Lou, Maui ANNEX,
Contequenty, inthe ligt ofthe absence of any injunction the Anoiy' ltr dated 8 Apa
2020 (Ref: LiT-TOPrZ0io4a) now needs to be repied to by Top FM Lil The lett is
‘produced below for ease of erence
“Ret: UT-ToR20040
‘Mr Batkrishna Kaunhye
‘Managing Director
TOP FM Lie
7 Floor, The Peninsula,
2A, Falcon Siroet,
Caudan
PortLouis
08 Aprit 2020
Deer Si,
‘Ro: Potential breach by TOP EM Ltd in programme “Tempo Ia so” broadcast on
24 Fabruary 2020 a8 from 17h30.
The Authorty is ofthe considered view that the extract of the programme "Tmo le
430" brosteas by TOP FM Ltd an 24 February 2020 as from 170 aren bree othe
Lundertined part of paragraph 2a) of te Code of Conde forBroadkasting Services
set out in the Second Schedule fo the Independent Broadstin Autholy Act which
roviies as flows.
“2.Genera
Broadcasting lcenases shall:
() not broadcast any material which is indecent. obscene or
‘offensive fo pubic moras cr affensie tothe ralgious carats or
feelings of any section of the papain o ily fo praludee tho
safety of the State or the pubic onser or relations between
sections ofthe population:
(
The extract isa flows:
At around 18h12
Jack Bieta!
Nou bizen kapay ena courage pou dr Mol deux htsoz, on Ks, fous 3 pis en
dehors nous soviet. To pas enn dimun erédbe pou astizer pou vien di nou Mi rou
been fer et par allours, Cost Kl pe rode for dan nde art Musuman ant certains
‘wligions, fi pou vin fr ga dan Maunce. Pou ave enn moment, a canraciton ki
lever dan Tindal, ena enn Universit en Inde ma fx zoven 0 dant,
Page 20h ue ANNEX 2,
bbanala rent den unversié vnn tor untversté pashi Urwersty of Uitar Pradesh
Parski Universt lan prendposivon contre Moat Etlalsse mo pe or i dimun,
ty
‘You are hereby requested to show cause, in wring, by Thursday 18 Apri 2020 by
‘moan, 3 latest why TOP FM La should not be sanctioned forme pont eaen of
‘he underined par of parsreph 2a o he Code of Conduct for Broackasting Servieas
et aut nthe Second Schedule othe Independent Broadcasting utfonty Act.
Yours faithful,
1 Ramphut
Acting Director*
‘TOP FM Lis is therefore request o show causa in wring, by Tuesday 13 October 2020
Dinoon. at atest why TOP FM Lid shout nol be sanctioned forthe pote beach as stated
Inthe Authority leter dated 08 Aor 2020,
‘Yours faith
«
[Acting Director
Page aot a9 atu ANNEXS,
Demand of Particulars
‘Ashok Radhakissoon
1s Inne «ee Binnetman Ke Kevye
You might also like
- Le Communique Emis Par Voila Bagatelle PDFDocument2 pagesLe Communique Emis Par Voila Bagatelle PDFLe Mauricien LTDNo ratings yet
- Covid 19 - Nouvelle PhaseDocument1 pageCovid 19 - Nouvelle PhaseLe Mauricien LTD67% (3)
- Arts Et Patrimoine Culturel: Le Plan D'action National Post Covid-19Document5 pagesArts Et Patrimoine Culturel: Le Plan D'action National Post Covid-19ION NewsNo ratings yet
- Liste de Points de Vente Bouteilles Gaz TotalDocument1 pageListe de Points de Vente Bouteilles Gaz TotalLe Mauricien LTDNo ratings yet
- Comm Contraventions Apr2020Document6 pagesComm Contraventions Apr2020Le Mauricien LTDNo ratings yet
- Final Registration of Political Parties NAE2019 PDFDocument6 pagesFinal Registration of Political Parties NAE2019 PDFLe MauricienNo ratings yet
- Communiqué Du Bureau de La Présidence de La RépubliqueDocument1 pageCommuniqué Du Bureau de La Présidence de La RépubliqueLe Mauricien LTDNo ratings yet
- Pélerinage Pére Laval 2019Document4 pagesPélerinage Pére Laval 2019Le Mauricien LTDNo ratings yet
- Urgent Communique Mardi 27-11-18Document2 pagesUrgent Communique Mardi 27-11-18Le Mauricien LTDNo ratings yet
